MovieChat Forums > Shmulpa > Replies
Shmulpa's Replies
What's wrong with you? Your inability to perceive Communism being a failed ideology that has killed millions of people is like... It's like a retarded kid who doesn't understand disregarding his own feces.
If you're just trolling, then... Jesus, you're stupid.
what you're saying is compelling, but it's also connecting dots that aren't necessarily directly related. And you're putting a lot of the onus on me to do homework to verify what you're saying is true. Just explain it to me.
A president's influence on GDP growth is limited to his fiscal policy in the framework of whatever happens to be going on at that time. The rest of it is up to the Federal Reserve, which controls lending and interest rates. So those are factors other than the presidency that can affect the GDP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents
Well shut my mouth. Looks like the economy does do better under Democrats. This may be one of the grains of truth behind Leftist rage.
I still don't like bad social policy, like enabling the homeless to poop in the streets. And it's not the Republicans who condoned rioting for like six months in Portland and other areas.
bump
I don't understand her success other than how maybe there's something appealing about her to the younger generation that doesn't make any sense to me at all. Whatever it is, I don't respect it because it's not acting ability or charisma. I think it's just some lame pretentious vibe she has that manages to give the illusion of charisma, like Billy Eilish.
She should be cast in a remake of Peter Jackson's "Dead-Alive."
"ZINGAYA!" :D
Well I don't see what race has to do with how good someone is for a movie role. Because I'm a woke fucking retard.
Don't be cryptic. If you want to make a point, do it.
yeah, the national debt is going up.
so? is that it?
the article cites tax cuts, defense spending, and "recessions" being the major cause. That's mighty vague. There sure does look like a storm coming if those numbers are true, but... the economy is a vast and incredibly complex beast... what exactly are you saying?
thanks dude. Happy new year!
Basic story of why I am a registered Republican:
1) The super rich pay taxes, but some of them pay people lots of money to weasel them out of paying as much taxes.
2) Have they? That's a vague statement.
3) The middle class pays most of the taxes. This isn't fair but I fail to see the point of getting very angry about this. I worked to get the small bit of success I've had, and I can't complain about the standard of living I enjoy.
I've yet to graduate to the standard of living that I expected by this time, but I don't blame the rich for that. I started making smart choices a little later in life than most.
4) It's not "poor people" taking money in social programs that I resent, it's that so many of these social programs are fucking retarded and harmful. San Francisco made thefts of under $900 to get only a slap on the wrist. They also provide handouts for the homeless and drug addicts. So now it's a shithole full of criminals and feral humans.
These social programs enable human excrement under the laughable veneer of compassion. Its effects are so obviously harmful that you can only conclude that these programs are passed by either sociopathic politicians or useful idiots, both of whom only care about their own gain.
5-7) you're completely talking out of your ass.
Look no one tells me to "hate insult and whine". Who tells you to lie? Republicans aren't the ones who passed the idiotic laws and programs that have turned some cities on the West Coast into crime-ridden shitholes. I'm tired of people making out that there is no logical reason to be Republican or whoever. There is. I just gave you one.
That doesn't mean I automatically believe everything any "Right Wing News Source" says, either. That would be stupid. I'm not terribly smart, but I'm smart enough to notice patterns and to question whether things are true whether I want them to be or not. So I join whatever team that aligns most closely to what I believe.
no, but based on experience, I bet I'm right.
he went on to make a handful of successful films before going on to LOTR though
I don't think I'm making myself clear enough. In my subjective experience, lots of movies now lack a sense of *meaning* or *purpose*. They lack a sense of significance. "Licorice Pizza" lacks this quality more than most.
This is difficult to explain to people who don't get it already, like bad writing. There is such a thing as bad writing, like the lack of a character arc from Rey in the Disney Star Wars sequels. Or everything in "The Predator."
You can have a well-written story about meaningful things, like a first love, but have it still be meaningless self-indulgence. That's what this movie seems like to me. Because nothing about it seems to have been inspired by anything except the filmmaker's desire to stroke his own ego.
He didn't grow up in the early 70s. He didn't have an affair with an older woman as a teenager, and I don't think has anything meaningful to say about old-young relationships or envy or heartbreak (like in the Graduate); he apparently just kinda threw that in there because it was edgy. Like everything else. That's why this gives me that awkward feeling.
thats kind of you, thanks
i can respect wanting to tell the story of the place and time where you grew up, but PTA was born in 1970.
also you're sorta misconstruing my argument. I don't dislike it because it's not set where I grew up. I dislike it because it seems like a dumb little vanity project that's set in the 70s because... hey, cool, the 70s.
Wrongthink alert. Report to room 101 for NPC re-programming.